GOP Eyes 60-Vote Senate Majority

NewsMax ^ | 11/30/2004 | Joseph Taranto

[Last Dakotan]

There is no way they'll kick out their man.

Maybe, maybe not. First Hoven would have to run and second he would have to get assurances from the repub party to outspend Conrad. Shutting down some of the pork Conrad pulls in would help make him venerable.

[Dimez Apart]

I am patiently awaiting the death of the Democratic Party. The 'Moderates' (eyes roll here) are losing control, and Howard Dean is still their superstar. Anywho, an easy 5 seat pickup, just go look whose up for reelection. Our Senators in Blue states are Republican moderates who are liked anyways. Better to have a RINO who votes the right way half the time then a Demo who never votes right.

[alwaysconservative]

I know that Ed Schafer said he wouldn't run against Dorgan, but he is infinitely more popular than Conrad, and if he could be coaxed back into public service, could beat Conrad easily. Conrad hasn't had Dorgan's years of constituency service that keep Dorgan comfortably in office. What is interesting is that Conrad, more so than Dorgan, was closely tied to Daschle from SD.

If there was a vacancy in either Senatorial seat, Hoeven could appoint himself and then Jack Dalrymple, the GOP lieutenant governor, would be elevated to governor. But I don't think that's going to happen.

Personally, every time I see Conrad putting up one of those silly charts to make a point, I just want to giggle.

[KwasiOwusu]

"Basically, the nation is indeed 50/50, having a few seat majority in the senate is aberrant.
Actually, I'll go on the limb right now, and say that republicans will not hold onto the majority in the Senate in 2006. Best guess us a tie, with the VP flipping it to the republicans."

Not gonna happen, dude.
# 1, the nation is certainly NOT 50/50 nation.
Go read Micheal Barone at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1273199/posts

Extract :
"Bush beat Kerry 51 to 48 percent; the popular vote for the House appears to be about 51 to 47 percent Republican. Voters knew the stakes--polls showed majorities thought this was an important and consequential election--and both candidates had plenty of opportunity to make their cases.
Thanks to the 527s, more money was apparently spent against Bush than for him. So the results cannot be dismissed as an accident. We are now a 51 percent nation, a Republican majority, as, once again in America, love has proved stronger than hate"

And # 2, every indication is, not only will the Republicans hold their big majority of 11 in the US Senate, Republicans will easily increase their majority in the Senate as well, with President Bush campaigning strongly for Republican Senate candidates like he did in 2002, where Bush came through for Republican candidates , who won big.
If you are going to go on a limb here, I suggest you get a very big parachute, even thought I doubt that will save you, seeing that you'd be too close to the ground to use that parachute effectively anyway, even if you had it. :)

[TNCMAXQ]

Actually the Dems did get up to 76 seats after the 1936 election, and had 68 after the Johnson landslide of '64. Between 1958 and 1994 though they never got below 55 seats. It looked as if they had a permanent majority. That makes it all the more remarkable that the GOP has been in the majority for 8 of the last 10 years, and it looks like that will hold it for a few more election cycles at least.

[politicket]

The GOP better be looking at losing seats in 2006 if their experiment with Arlen Specter and the Judiciary chairmanship doesn't pan out.

Mr. Frist needs to know that we have a long memory...

[1Old Pro]

The author is on crack if he thinks the GOP has any material chance of picking up five seats.

Agreed

[zbigreddogz]

Santorum isn't the only vulnerable Republican. Frist isn't running again, unless he changes his mind, and if Harold Ford runs for the open seat, we may well lose it. If he doesn't, I think we are OK, but if he does, we may well lose the seat.

It wouldn't actually be a total loss if we did though. While one part of me wants the Dems to lose every election, the realist in me knows they won't, and since they won't, it is nice to have sane D's, of which Ford is one, having prominant rolls.

That said, I hope we keep the seat either way. I hope Ford doesn't run, because it's actually amazing that he's as moderate and sane as he is, given the fact that he's in a completely safe D district.

[JCEccles]

Basically, the nation is indeed 50/50

Not any more, it isn't. It's more like 47/53 with only 15 percent of voters self-idetifying as solidly liberal and about 30 percent self-identifying as solidly conservative. That's a reversal in numbers over the past 25 years. And it's a trend that shows every tendency to continue to the right.

Consider that fact that if only 10 to 15 percent more blacks were to switch sides, the Democrats would likely never win another presidential election. The Democrats' base support is unnaturally brittle and overly reliant on the loyalty of a few discrete blocs such as black voters. But blacks oppose the gay rights agenda by an even greater percentage than do white Republicans. By continuing to resist the gay rights agenda conservative Republicans are emphasizing a natural solidarity and alliance with the black community and giving blacks an alternative path to influence and power that is more in line with blacks' more conservative social values.

[zbigreddogz]

So, he needs to remember that you will cut off your nose to spite your face?

Good plan.

[DM1]

Chafee in RI may be vulnerable depending on who the Dems run

[zbigreddogz]

All whom you mentioned vote to end fillibusters.

And McCain hardly belongs in that group. His voting record is actually quite conservative, in spite of some retohric.

[KC_Conspirator]

They have 55 now. There is little room for excuse now.

[Hank Rearden]

And when they get 100 Senators, the Pubbies promise to do something about Big Stupid Government. Really.

Unless the RINOs stop them, in which case they'll continue the exponential growth in government parasites, spending and deficits.

Then they'll go for a 101-seat majority.

[wildbill]

The Democrats never got more than 62 Senate seats at the height of their power. Realistically, the GOP is never going to get more than that number if they win ALL the seats in Red States."

Okay, then lets turn some of those blue states red!

[dangus]

I dunno. The economy is set to start roaring. The Iraqi situation is pointed towards vindication. And Reid just hired a bunch of Massachusetts liberals to be the voice of the Senate Democrats. It could happen. My guess is that there are 57 Republicans in 1999, but stronger upward potential than downward.

[wallcrawlr]

agreed on the chart display...its classic.

The day comrad-Conrad or Dorgan both get kicked out of office is the day I move back to ND....it aint gonna happen.

North Dakota native here.

[dangus]

Uh, I dunno WHERE you got your figures, but you are plain, simply, dead wrong. The Democrats got 77 Senators during the FDR administration. 62 was about NORMAL from 1933-1980, except for a brief lull after Truman f***ed up Korea.

[JCEccles]

I would hope they would always vote to end filibusters, but I can foresee some or all of them digging in their heels on certain issues.

The fact that Republicans now have enough spare votes in the Senate to overcome the less-reliable votes on simple majority issues even on a bad day is a great development. The relative influence and power of the Snowes' and Chaffees' on close issues has been significantly curtailed.

McCain is okay when he isn't drugged up on the adulation of the left-wing media.

[badgerlandjim]

Sixty GOP senators will just expose a new crop of Jumpin' Jims.